Pages

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Twitters beware: 8 months stretch beckons

The first case of its kind and a juror is given 8 months for facebooking a defendant. A clear case of contempt of court.

The Attorney General wanted to show off his size 9's and has done so. The case cost millions of pounds (much of this yours and mine incidentally) and was brought to a halt because of this act of stupidity.

This is a new precedent. Whether the DG will try something similar with injunction busting Tweeters we shall have to wait and see.

I agree with Anon of 1:38. This was a juror contacting a defendent and passing on details of the case. A highly stupid woman and a stupid defendent. The juror's action was a clear breach of everything that the Judge warned the jury not to do. She in fact undermined one of the principles of an important part of out democracy. She caused a trial to be abandoned.

I would argue that this case is totally different to the injuction cases covered on this blog. To be honest, I thought the woman should have been sentenced to a much longer prison term.

The author, Martina Cole. Has a super injunction out on one of her victims of sexual assault in the mid 70's. She did this to two kids for over 4 years. And then went on to write about such acts and amass a fortune. The person has already served a prison term for breaking the injunction in 2010.

@6:18. WOW!!!!! There is one hell of a difference between covering up the public's knowledge of a crime or wrongdoing by someone famous to protect their reputation and sponsorship deals and a juror who broke jury trial legally binding etiquette.

If that is true, I would argue that is a complete and utter abuse of the legal system. That is not justice.

I learnt of another super-injunction today.A footballer - he is known for holiday ads - had an affair with the girlfriend of a very well known TV presenter (one half of a double-act). The couple's subsequent break-up has recently been reported but not the reason for it.

My comments about Martina Cole above are completely true. I was the one who did a 70 day prison term for breaking her illegal injunction. She is a child molester and vile person in general. She has gone on to amass a fortune from writing "crime fiction" when some are actual real events, carried out on children. She is a paedophile. But her victim went to prison.

I will continue to go back to prison until the truth is out for all to make up their own minds. She has never challenged me, nor did she turn up at the high courts. the court was held in private. she had several lawyers and two leading barristers.

I was on my own, no legal aid for civil litigation actions. How is that anything other than unfair.

I was on my own, i turned up and accepted my sentance in defiance of her illegal injunction.

The Judge David Eady. Gave me 70 days, reduced to 5 weeks and an offer of purging myself. "say you're sorry and wont do it again and go home"

I took the 70 days in Pentonville. I will take them again and again until she is outed and defends herself in an open court.

She committed perjury in her witness statement for the intial claim for the injunction.

It's just a matter of time. Every prison officer and worker and other person held in Pentonville now know about her. Many threw her books in the bin. But all, afterwards claimed.

"She writes with much more than a vivid imagination"

She is a paedophile and she committed vile sexual acts on me between 1976 and 1981. I was born in 1970. What she did is wrong and it's effected my life on a daily basis since then.

But, I did the prison term for speaking the truth. Not her, for committing the offense!